Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Here is the ending of Mark that is "not" in dispute and has "not" been claimed by some to be added:
Click to expand...

joobz said:
So you admit that the ending of Mark was forged? Excellent.
...
Click to expand...

No, I admitted

"Here is the ending of Mark that is "not" in dispute and has "not" been claimed by some to be added:

Saying something is in dispute is not claiming something is forged -- you're seeing something that is not there.
 
DOC said:
Actually Christianity didn't need any writings to take off if we are to believe one of the world's greatest historians, Luke, because he wrote in the Book of Acts that 3000 accepted Christianity after Peter's sermon on Pentecost, only 50 days after the resurrection. That must have been a powerful sermon by the former Christ denier to convert 3000 in one day.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in seeing the survey forms. How many were at the event? How many did not tick the “I am converted box” or did everyone there convert? Was the voting in secret or were there a number of burly assistants “helping” people with their feedback forms. Was there a follow up to confirm that the conversion was not a short term effect?
 
DOC said:
...None of the originals of these letters and other NT writings exist, just like none of the originals of other ancient writings exist. But these letters were so powerful and so important that they were many times hand copied and passed around to others. This is how information got around pre printing press and radio and TV. Even paper hadn't been invented yet, so there was no newspapers.
Click to expand...

Apart from being wrong about 'other' ancient writings, as DOC has had pointed out before, DOC adheres to words like 'powerful' in describing why the NT was 'hand' copied many times.
Does it matter at all how many times these NT writings were copied after being declared canonical?
I think not, DOC.
 
DOC said:
Actually Christianity didn't need any writings to take off if we are to believe one of the world's greatest historians, Luke, because he wrote in the Book of Acts that 3000 accepted Christianity after Peter's sermon on Pentecost, only 50 days after the resurrection. That must have been a powerful sermon by the former Christ denier to convert 3000 in one day.
Click to expand...

I love it when DOC talks about one of the world's greatest historians.
It reads like an invitation to to explain once again why Luke isn't considered inerrant. Remember the Antioch Stones, DOC?

Luke's claim of 3,000 converted after Peter's sermon, 'powerful' as it might have been, is, of course, purest hearsay as well as embarrassingly irrelevant to the discussion; after all, Savaranola and Torquemada and Vincente Ferrer were 'powerful' preachers, too, DOC.

Can it be DOC has forgotten about 'red herrings'?
 
DOC said:
No, I admitted

"Here is the ending of Mark that is "not" in dispute and has "not" been claimed by some to be added:

Saying something is in dispute is not claiming something is forged -- you're seeing something that is not there.
Click to expand...
I see. So you believe that the missing text was a mistake? Perhaps the verses were somhow deleted? Or that the pages were lost?

Funny, and I thought you were claiming that these texts were closest to what they originally were. Yet, you are already having to explain away why these bizarre omissions exist in older text but not newer text.
 
pakeha said:
I love it when DOC talks about one of the world's greatest historians.
It reads like an invitation to to explain once again why Luke isn't considered inerrant. Remember the Antioch Stones, DOC?

Luke's claim of 3,000 converted after Peter's sermon, 'powerful' as it might have been, is, of course, purest hearsay as well as embarrassingly irrelevant to the discussion; after all, Savaranola and Torquemada and Vincente Ferrer were 'powerful' preachers, too, DOC.

Can it be DOC has forgotten about 'red herrings'?
Click to expand...

I particularly enjoy how Doc continues to append "World's Greatest Historian" to Luke's name every post in which he mentions Luke. It's as if he believes that simply repeating this "title" will cause the rest of us to suddenly go:

OMG, it's all become so clear now. Luke is the World's Greatest Historian and so his writings must be inerrant. I was misapplying my critical thinking skills and should have just accepted Josh McDowell's appraisal of Sir William Ramsey's appraisal of Luke.
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
Actually Christianity didn't need any writings to take off if we are to believe one of the world's greatest historians, Luke, because he wrote in the Book of Acts that 3000 accepted Christianity after Peter's sermon on Pentecost, only 50 days after the resurrection. That must have been a powerful sermon by the former Christ denier to convert 3000 in one day.
Click to expand...

What a joke!. Luke? We know not who was the person or persons to whom the name Luke is attributed - by the Church much later. So how can this entity or these entities be regarded as historians.

At least we know about these Historians:

Josephus - although the reference to Jesus in "Antiquities" was forged later by Christians.
Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny the Elder - all know to have lived and all reputable Roman Historians.

Stop using the bible as a history book. IT IS NOT!



Robert
 
DOC said:
Actually Christianity didn't need any writings to take off if we are to believe one of the world's greatest historians, Luke
Click to expand...

This AGAIN ? Why do you choose to believe the opinion of ONE person on this biblical writer is beyond me.

Also, if Luke is such a historical god, does that mean that the Matthew genealogy is simply wrong ?
 
DOC said:
And just think how many more Christian manuscripts would be around if several Roman emperors didn't confiscate them, and make it illegal to possess them -- not to mention torturing and killing Christians by the thousands like Diocletian, and to a lesser extent Nero and Hadrian.
Click to expand...


Willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar?

Ichneumonwasp said:
I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Hoku; but DOC's arguments have been answered so many times... He actually mostly recycle them and rarely introduce new ones, or even introduce new examples to his old arguments...

So, it's not like he has any interest in really understanding the subject. Maybe in converting us? But even he should realize how hopeless it is by that point... I am not sure what he is trying to achieve.
 
Simon39759 said:
Thanks Hoku; but DOC's arguments have been answered so many times... He actually mostly recycle them and rarely introduce new ones, or even introduce new examples to his old arguments...

So, it's not like he has any interest in really understanding the subject. Maybe in converting us? But even he should realize how hopeless it is by that point... I am not sure what he is trying to achieve.
Click to expand...


10,000 posts. ;)
 
Simon39759 said:
He actually mostly recycle them and rarely introduce new ones, or even introduce new examples to his old arguments...
Click to expand...
I can't remember a new argument from him in the last 6months...and frankly he has never presented even one original idea, just regurgitates McDowell and Geisler nonsense that even he doesn't understand.
I guess he hasn't been reading any new apologetics and frankly most apolegetics have no had a new idea in decades, just recycled garbage.
So, it's not like he has any interest in really understanding the subject. Maybe in converting us? But even he should realize how hopeless it is by that point... I am not sure what he is trying to achieve.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I actually believe he is delusional enough to believe he is scoring "points" against the evil atheist hence his attempts to play the martyr and whine so often.
 
Simon39759 said:
... I am not sure what he is trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

DOC is mainly trying to convince DOC. Realizing how weak his arguments are, he is in danger of becoming an atheist himself. He has to keep repeating his mantras or he is in danger of thinkiing outside his religious box, possibly the worst thing that can happen to a religious fundy.
 
RoboTimbo said:
[DOC] Realizing how weak his arguments are
Click to expand...
Although the optimist in me wants to believe that the willfully ignorant can learn at least something by participating on this site, I have a hunch that, in this case, it might be merely wishful thinking - if DOC did realise how weak his arguments are, then he'd stop rehashing them, wouldn't he?
 
Actually Christianity didn't need any writings to take off if we are to believe one of the world's greatest historians, Luke, because he wrote in the Book of Acts that 3000 accepted Christianity after Peter's sermon on Pentecost, only 50 days after the resurrection. That must have been a powerful sermon by the former Christ denier to convert 3000 in one day.
Click to expand...

Would you stop that? Even if every word in the Bible were true, Peter was not a ragin' pagan who suddenly decided to convert. He was not a Saul/Paul. He was one of Jesus' disciples from the very beginning, but had one slip when he denied the association due to fright. Even then, he couldn't help it - he had to do it. It was prophesied.

Is there anything you won't lie about? (And before you protest that you didn't lie - you did, by implication. You consistently call Peter the "Christ-denier," leaving the impression that he wandered around behind Jesus contradicting his every word until a sudden conversion, when you know that's not the case.)
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I particularly enjoy how Doc continues to append "World's Greatest Historian" to Luke's name every post in which he mentions Luke. It's as if he believes that simply repeating this "title" will cause the rest of us to suddenly go:
Quote:
OMG, it's all become so clear now. Luke is the World's Greatest Historian and so his writings must be inerrant. I was misapplying my critical thinking skills and should have just accepted Josh McDowell's appraisal of Sir William Ramsey's appraisal of Luke.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks, BobTheDonkey.
Still- I'm not so ensnared by the devil's deceits I can't admit Ramsay's chapter on Luke's sensitive handling of 'Rhoda, the Slave Girl' really is more or less the last word on the subject.

But from there to WGH is a bit much for me, even on Josh's sayso.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom